Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 48976
Date: 2007-06-13

On 2007-06-13 20:06, stlatos wrote:
> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>> On 2007-06-13 00:44, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>> For <pa:la> as well as <pa:lum ~ -s> 'stake, I
>> propose *pag(^)-tlo- >
>> *pak├żlo > *pakslo- > *pa(g)zlo- > pa:lo-,
> I've already described this change and some similar ones several
> times before;

So have I :-), and to tell the truth, these etymologies are fairly
standard; most are even given by Pokorny (not that Pokorny is
particularly authoritative).

is there anything I've done you wanted to argue against
with these examples (besides intermediate s., etc.)?

No. You wanted to know my opinion about <pa:la> and I gave it, providing
some wider background. I'm glad if we agree in this area, more or less.

> So you believe Ktl>Ksl, but not g()t>g()s or Latin gs>zg? What
> makes the ev. for the others unconvincing to you?

Well, I'm ready to accept anything as long as the evidence is solid. A
proposal based on one or two examples (like what you propose for Skt.
kr.tsna-) and loose semantics ('woven' --> 'entire'??) can't win people
over easily.